Phil Forum : Design or No Design

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344257

Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool

As a retired Architect, I have some understanding of Design and Blueprints. And I do see evidence of design intent in the world, but the nature of the artist can only be inferred from the nature of the artwork. However, most arguments against a designing deity, point-out the imperfections and failures of the so-called design. So I no longer use those terms in my discussions of a philosopher's First Cause.

Instead of the Genesis concept of magical creation of a perfect Garden of Eden, I view the world as evolving like a computer program from basic codes and criteria toward an answer to the programmer's "what if?" question. This notion is supported by physicists who have concluded that the material world is essentially mathematical in nature.

Of course, arguing that the world is a program won't satisfy Atheists, because they would require hard evidence of a Programmer, and it won't sit well with Theists, who prefer the traditional biblical account of seven day creation. It also won't suit those who think in terms of the Blueprint metaphor as a predestined design. It may not even make sense for those who imagine that the world is evolving toward a Technological Singularity. But, for me, a better metaphor for the Information Age is Evolutionary Programming in which the final answer is unknown until computed via a heuristic process of evolution. Hence, imperfections and failures are to be expected.

Evolutionary Programming : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344257

Are you saying that the mathematical nature of the world is a clue? Can I then say that the programmer/architect is god? — TheMadFool

Yes. My personal philosophical worldview is based on the 21st century understanding of the dual functions of Information : both mental and physical. So, the fact that some physicists have concluded that the material world is ultimately mathematical (abstract information) supports my thesis. Of course, most people would find it inconceivable that immaterial abstract math could become concrete material stuff. But I have been developing my own hypothesis of how that phase transition might work. However, I'm not a scientist, so you don't have to take my word for it. You can research the mathematical and physical literature for yourself.

I prefer not to use the traditional term for a creator deity, because of the superfluous religious baggage attached. But I found that more scientific (Multiverse) or philosophical (First Cause) terms don't convey the real world implications as completely (quanta and qualia). So, I compromised on the novel spelling "G*D" to indicate that the Cause of our world's existence is in most ways equivalent to the ancient notion of a Creator. Then, in the glossary I try to define that neologism in such a way as to dispel the anthro-morphic & magical & anti-science meanings attached to the conventional term, that don't apply to my thesis. I also use other metaphors, such as "Programmer", to convey the concept of the Enformer of our world. The key difference between "God" and "G*D" is that the latter doesn't have to intervene in the process of natural evolution. The Programmer just runs He/r program, and waits for the final output.


Mathematical Universe Hypothesis : "Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344257

Personally I am agnostic as far as determinism and free will. But it seems to me if one believes in determinism, design - any design, human, animal - no longer makes sense. Stuff just happens. An architect plans a house, but that plan was determined long before he was born. Atoms bash into atoms, molecules follow their paths. This isn't design, it is just inevitable unfolding. — Coben

For philosophical purposes it's good that you are not prejudiced in favor of either Free Will or Determinism. In my own worldview, I've concluded that humans are both pre-determined by natural laws and free-to-choose due to inherent randomness. Thus, we can have cosmic design and local freedom too. A good example of how that freedom-within-determinism works is illustrated in computer design using Evolutionary Programming and Genetic Programming methods. In these cases, the programmers are seeking solutions that cannot be pre-determined.

For those who cannot see any signs of design in nature, I can only say that even atheists, like Stephen ("know the mind of god") Hawking, are forced to use "design" terminology to describe how the world began and proceeds to evolve, presumably without intention. In my own training as a designer, we once did an exercise called "design by accident". But even though we allowed objects to arrange themselves randomly, the exercise would never get started without the intention of the designer to set-up the system and then allow it to evolve freely. As in Evolutionary Programming the system is "designed" to "unfold inevitably". Since the intention occurs before the exercise begins, it is not obvious from within the experiment.

Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

Order From Randomness : https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2FZxTKT ... -of-random

Order Within Chaos : https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science ... -in-chaos/

Freewill Within Determinism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344470

Those intentions are not made by the supposed 'designer' intentions appear, determined past causes. — Coben

That's based on the assumption of Determinism. And Randomness does indeed allow short strings of "apparent" order, that lead to the Gambler's Fallacy. But long and progressive chains of order, such as the evolution of intelligent beings (novelty), supposedly from random collisions of atoms (disorder), cannot be explained by rigid Determinism, except as an act of faith. There is no novelty in randomness without the Direction of Selection, or the Action of Intention.

The Theory of Evolution was based on a> Random Mutations plus b> Natural Selection. But "selection" requires Criteria, which require Intention*1. So, Evolution is Freedom Within Determinism, Randomness ordered by Selection, which allows Novelty despite Laws.


"In a godless universe with no design or purpose, the emergence of consciousness is an unexplained anomaly." http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page66.html

Gambler's Fallacy (non-independent events are not completely random) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

*1 Intention : Darwin's theory was based on the example of humans intentionally selecting canines for certain functions over thousands of years, which resulted in dogs that could hardly survive in the wild without the help of humans.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344470

But if everything is math, then nothing is math. This is the fate of all monisms? — jellyfish

How about : the foundation of everything is mathematical, therefore everything is made of Information? In my thesis, "Information" is equivalent to Spinoza's "Substance" (Monism). And everything in the world is a "Mode" of that Eternal Mind Stuff.

"According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode (E1a1). A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived." https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344470

Are you talking about genetic algorithms? Those are awesome. But we provide the fitness function. — jellyfish

Yes. Evolving programs, as opposed to calculated programs, are heuristic in that they explore random paths (mutations) and judge their fitness against the programmer's criteria. In my thesis, the Great Programmer set-up the initial conditions and natural laws that determine which options are selected for the next generation. The "unfit" paths are ruthlessly abandoned to extinction. Which could apply to humans if we prove to be unfit for future generations. In that case, we may be replaced by robots.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... difference

And nowhere in this did you explain how randomness and determinism lead to freedom. — Coben

Most discussions of this topic are argued from the assumption of a True/False dichotomy : Either/Or. But my worldview and operating philosophy are based on the Both/And assumption : Yin/Yang. That's why my reasoning is hard for Black/White thinkers to grasp.

But, if you have the patience to follow the thread, these excerpts from a Quora Forum topic may explain how I rationalize human Freewill. It uses a mathematical analogy (Bell Curve) to illustrate that neither directionless Randomness nor cause & effect Determinism is absolute. Statistically, the Bell Curve makes the behavior of collective systems predictable, but the actions of individuals remains unpredictable, hence free from determinism. But this is not the kind of FreeWill that most people imagine. Instead, it's restricted conditional freedom. Humans are both free-ish and predetermined.

Freedom Within Determinism : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12&p=58#p58
Begin at third panel : 08/04/2018

BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... difference

Random effects are not under anyone's control or choice. — Coben

Precisely! Randomness is an integral part of the "design" of Evolution. The program has two major components : a Randomizer to generate multiple options, and a Derandomizer (CPU) to select the "fittest" options to meet the Designer's criteria. Together, these components provide exceptions to Dumb Destiny, and a progressive arrow to the otherwise directionless "unfolding" of Time. But ultimate control was in the mind of the designer working outside the system. Which is why demands for empirical evidence of the Creator are fruitless. The only evidence is in the architecture of the system itself.

As an architect, I created Dumb Designs that depended on construction workers to interpret and implement the designer's intentions. And sometimes they got it wrong, so I had to intervene to get the project back on track. Yet the Cosmic Designer created a system that constructs itself from nothing but a metaphorical blueprint (or recipe, or DNA kernel) encoded in the Singularity. The Programmer's Intention was translated into the operating system code. From the Big Bang onward, the system is self-creating and self-directing.

The assertion above about "control" assumes, erroneously, that any postulated designer would have to reach into the system (intervene) to make any course corrections. But if you think of the universe as a Black Box functioning automatically, then the designer had to think "outside the box". In other words, the system was designed to work autonomously. This is not how the bible-god works. But it is how the postulated Enformer is presumed to work. The universe is an Autonomous Self-Directing Evolution System. Once set in motion, it requires no further inputs. It works by inherent (built-in) Teleology, not by ad hoc interventions (miracles).

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344942

There's no need to get into this kind of implicit insult. — Coben

No insult was intended. The Black/White reference was intended to show what the BothAnd philosophy is supposed to provide an alternative to.

I don't think it holds at all, but if it did, it would mean that any stochastic process, in your deism, would mean there is free will present. — Coben

No. IMHO, Evolution does indeed progress freely without any specific predetermined path -- only a general direction. But that doesn't mean that Brownian molecules have any choice in their movements. FreeWill is a feature of self-conscious creatures, who can predict the future from past experience, and choose a direction that seems desirable.

Enformationism has some similarities to Panpsychism, but the fact that all things in the world are composed of generic Information, does not imply that they are self-conscious. Again, self-consciousness is an emergent feature of creatures that are freewill agents. Consciousness is necessary for animals to live. But self-consciousness allows some creatures to thrive, by merging their individual creativity into a species Culture.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344942

Does your theory include an explicit fitness function? Or it more like Darwin generalized? — jellyfish

Oh no. That's would be far above my pay grade. I'll leave the specifying of an evolutionary program to those who are experts in that field. And I leave the specifics of G*D's fitness function for Natural Evolution to the Creator. But, in general, Darwin has discovered that nature seems to be designed to experiment with a variety of species, in its search for ever "better" forms of Life & Mind. What the ultimate goal might be, I have no idea.

But, judging from the evidence we've collected so-far, the upward trend of Evolution probably requires physical complexity and mental intelligence, and even some level of FreeWill. Put those traits together and you find that Evolution has already created little creators of its own. That is not what you would expect from an accidental universe. Some even speculate that a future creative species, whether silicon or carbon based, might create something like a god-on-earth. I'm not smart enough to see that far ahead.

Note : what qualifies as "better" depends on the applicable Fitness Function.